On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:14:02 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > > had my experience would have been different. It's bad enough to have to > > tell people "Python 3 is currently lacking some critical libraries, > > particularly third-party libraries" without also telling them (wrongly > > IMO) "oh, and it's a new language too". > > That's why I propose the C to C++ analogy.
I think it's an unfortunate analogy. C++ needs new libraries (with brand new APIs) to take advantage of its abstraction capabilities. Python 3 has almost the same abstraction capabilities as Python 2, you don't need to write new libraries: just port the existing ones. > True, C++ does introduce a > lot of new features, but most programmers migrating from C to C++ > don't learn to use them properly for years, if ever, I'm told. I don't see how Python 3 has that problem. You can be productive here and now in Python 3, re-using your knowledge of Python 2 with a bit of added information. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
